Four of the best-known scientists espousing the belief that humanity's carbon emissions are an immediate and deadly threat have issued a statement begging their fellow greens to support nuclear power.
Doctors James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley co-signed an open letter over the weekend in which they address …

COMMENTS

Page:

Sigh...

The problem with the hard-greens is that people living comfortably is not anywhere on their agenda. They like to see humans as an infestation which has to be reined in and put back into the caves where we will languish and eventually die out and return Gaia to its pristine, holistic, universally loving condition. Presumably, while this is taking place, the greens themselves will be afforded special privileges and live in relative comfort as someone has to monitor and supervise the process, you know...

Global Warming is a scarecrow for them in order to hammer the rest of us onto this "path of salvation" and anything that makes the scarecrow less scary or shows that there is, indeed, another way is an anathema.

It is nice to see that some of the greens have actually the good of the planet at heart and are prepared to speak out against the misanthropic dogma...

Re: Sigh...

@Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Re: Sigh...

The problem is that many people don't bother listening to anything beyond the rants of the "hard line greens" and, just as in many other situations, tar all people who have a vaguely similar philosophy or belief with the same brush as the extremists.

Lewis, as always, goes to the opposite extreme, citing the claims that "renewable power simply can't provide anything like the amount of energy required for any large proportion of the human race to live a reasonably comfortable life" and this "requires most of the human race to remain in miserable poverty", but misses the point that this assumes that to have a "reasonably comfortable life" requires people to engage in some equivalent of the ridiculously profilgate energy expenditure that the USA and Europe indulge in.

I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to use energy MORE EFFICIENTLY! For instance, switching on the air con when it gets a bit warm or the heating as soon as it gets a bit chilly is simple, but it is NOT necessary if we actually put some effort into designing our buildings correctly and getting from A to B can be done much more efficiently than driving vehicles the size of a small truck whilst carrying a single occupant.

No hair shirts are required, no living in houses lit only by a single bulb, no thick jumpers necessary, we are supposed to be an intelligent species, but until we actually start *using* that intelligence instead of just short-sightedly worrying about how much it's going to cost (and how that will affect someone's election prospects or the interests of the big businesses who only pay attention to their dividends and bonuses) we are going to end up screwing ourselves into the ground and not solving the fundamental problem!

Re: @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

...I have said it before and I will say it again, we need to use energy MORE EFFICIENTLY!...

Alas, no.

This margin is too short to give you the economics lesson you need, so you are going to have to explain to yourself that:

1 - The market automatically makes us use ALL resources at the appropriate level of efficiency depending on their rarity/value. That is why you see goldsmiths sweeping their workbenches for scraps of gold, but you don't see builders filtering the gutter for sand.

2 - If you want to make people save energy and use it more efficiently, you are going to have to raise its price considerably. People CANNOT save items while still getting them cheap.

3 - There is NO justification for forcing energy prices high. We can effectively generate an infinite supply if we like. It is NOT a scarce raw material. Our current usage of energy would be considered ridiculous to someone of 100 years ago, and in 100 years time we will probably be using many times more energy than today.

@ Graham Marsden

I don't mind efficiency. In fact, I, personally, strongly dislike inefficiency (like the inefficiency of the wind power generation, for example).

However, a) efficiency does not equate reduced energy consumption and b) is not cheap.

The (a) is because as your things become more and more efficient you can afford to run more of them at the same time.

The (b) is because making things better needs capital expenditure and upfront cost which, unless you are well off already, may not be affordable to you. Having said that, the nations that are following in the footsteps of Europe and America are already using more efficient things than those existing when the US and Europe were going through the same process - it is the investment made by the developed nations that allows the developing nations to skip over generations in technology. Like the proverbial "on the shoulders of giants"...

In any case, the total energy requirements of humanity are going to go up even as the efficiency of the consumption will continue to increase.

Re: @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

Ah the "evil air condition" and the "tree killing SUV". Those may (or may not) be US problems but Amiland is not the world not even a large part of it. Look at Europe and you will see that most houses do not use air condition (even most offices don't) and most vehicles are not 3000ccm+ SUVs either. Houses are build on the compromise between "still affordable" and "well insulated" (we actually use brigs instead of wood!) and some "low energy" houses are actually "high mold" designs.

Domestic energy use is small compared to industrie or public transport. And those in turn are necessary if we want civilisation at least on the current level. With more and more people rightfully demanding it - we need MORE energy not less. With some parts of the system going "electric" including the "Green EgoWanker" of personal electric cars we need more energy, not less. Even if we tell the Greenies where to stuff their e-toys and concentrate on USEFULL electric cars (bus, trains, short haul trucks) we need more energy.

And there is little renewable available. Water is already well developed and any new dam or hydraulic power station will be blocked by NIMBYs, "The poor fishies", "EVIL technology" and the rest of the granola. Solar/Wind do not work without efficient and long term storage (Wind AND Solar where bascially out during a total of 4 weeks in winter 2012/13! in germany), stuff that is not available NOR any technology that can do this.

@Dodgy Geezer - Re: @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

Thank you for the offer of an Economics Lesson, but since I studied the subject at A Level, I think I'll decline and just point out the flaws in your post:

1) "The market automatically makes us use ALL resources at the appropriate level of efficiency depending on their rarity/value."

Balderdash. In a completely free market, products, energy and so on will be sold at whatever price the customers will bear. This is why, for instance, we currently have the nonsense of the retail energy companies saying "it's not our fault that prices are going up, it's because of the wholesale cost" whilst forgetting to mention that they are buying the power from generators which they *also* own!

Their retail arms are only making small profits because their wholesale arms are coining it in as they have a tacit cartel agreement with their fellow generators that nobody will rock the boat by cutting the wholesale price and they know that the consumers are stuck with buying it at whatever price they're told it is.

2) "If you want to make people save energy and use it more efficiently, you are going to have to raise its price considerably"

Again, balderdash. Why do we now buy fridges and freezers etc which are more energy efficient than the ones that were available in the past? Because they are cheaper to run! If you have the choice between paying X to run a fridge every year or 50% of X, why would you buy a less efficient fridge when you need to replace it?

3) "There is NO justification for forcing energy prices high".

I agree entirely and I wouldn't argue for that as it's short sighted and ignores the fact that energy (like petrol etc) have a relatively inelastic demand curve, whereby pushing the price up causes only a small reduction in the quantity used.

So, inconclusion, more efficient use will either bring down the amount of consumption or (at the least) slow down the rate of increase of consumption. Either way it's win-win.

@Vladimir Plouzhnikov - Re: @ Graham Marsden

> I, personally, strongly dislike inefficiency (like the inefficiency of the wind power generation, for example).

And the fact that cars are about 30% energy efficient whilst bicycles are 98% efficient?

> as your things become more and more efficient you can afford to run more of them at the same time.

Yes, you can. It doesn't mean you *have* to or need to, though.

> the total energy requirements of humanity are going to go up even as the efficiency of the consumption will continue to increase.

True, but as I pointed out above, at the very least we can affect the rate of change (in the mean time we can wait until we sort out Fusion which I have been reliably informed is only 30 years away... ;-) )

Re: @Dodgy Geezer - @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

Why go for expensive efficiency when you can have less expensive and almost limitless energy?

In time the market drives efficiency in technology in order to increase profits, whether this is increased efficiency in manufacturing or simply as a marketing gimmick to sell more fridge freezers. However, you're advocating efficiency as a solution to climate change / the looming energy crisis. This means you need leaps in efficiency to happen in a relatively short amount of time which means lots of investment up front which in turn drives up prices for everyone in order to maintain profit levels.

Re: Sigh...

We live in a false paradigm, directed by the elites and funded by tax payers. This false paradigm requires LIES about science, history and current events. If you've not noticed any LIES, then you've not been paying attention. There is NO Carbon climate forcing, only FORCED Carbon commodity marketing. There is NO 'sustainable' energy as all these green meanie schemes require more energy for creation than they produce. There is NO 'peak' oil as Hydrocarbons exist and are created throughout the Universe and are a prerequisite to life, not a finite artifact of past life.

All these science LIES explained in "Becoming A TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic".

Re: @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

"Lewis, as always, goes to the opposite extreme, citing the claims that "renewable power simply can't provide anything like the amount of energy required for any large proportion of the human race to live a reasonably comfortable life" and this "requires most of the human race to remain in miserable poverty"

Sir Fred Hoyle beat Lewis to it; in October 1979 his OU textbook, "Energy or extinction? The case for nuclear power" was published. I read it, have you? He very carefully calculated the effectiveness of alternative sources of energy, and it is clear that they are not up to it. It is a great pity that Hoyle was not around to kick Huhne in the arse for his stupidity when he held office.

Re: @Vladimir Plouzhnikov - @ Graham Marsden

"And the fact that cars are about 30% energy efficient whilst bicycles are 98% efficient?"

These numbers don't sound right to me. Bicycle may seem efficient because it only needs to carry the weight of the engine and not much else. But the engine itself is not efficient, it requires expensive specialist doped fuel mix and the water system is open cycle, so it has to be topped up with water regularly, which it then loses as waste. It also produces powerful greenhouse gases as the exhaust.

However, above all, it is not powerful enough to carry any reasonable payload (for that you need to use much more powerful traction engine called "horse", which requires yet another type of fuel, produces even more waste and is difficult to maintain as you have to keep it running non-stop for its entire operational life). Also, the bicycle uses the roads highly inefficiently and aggravates traffic congestion in the cities.

Re: @Vladimir Plouzhnikov - @ Graham Marsden

" the bicycle uses the roads highly inefficiently and aggravates traffic congestion in the cities"

Nonsense!

When transport congestion is modelled, two-wheel users are a positive benefit because whilst they might take up the same sort of space as cars etc whilst traffic is moving, as soon as things slow down, they start filtering between the gaps, thus *reducing* the amount of road space used and thus the congestion caused.

Re: @Vladimir Plouzhnikov - @ Graham Marsden

"two-wheel users are a positive benefit because whilst they might take up the same sort of space as cars etc whilst traffic is moving, as soon as things slow down, they start filtering between the gaps, thus *reducing* the amount of road space used and thus the congestion caused."

They slow down the traffic and create empty gaps, which they then fill - what's positive about that? These gaps act exactly like air bubbles in water pipes - they block the flow. I am saying this not from any fancy and politically correct model but looking at the real life and real roads. I mostly walk around on foot but, oh, I hate the cyclists in London! They seem to believe that the highway code and common sense safety are not meant for them.

Re: @Vladimir Plouzhnikov - @ Graham Marsden

"They slow down the traffic and create empty gaps"

You get a higher throughflow of traffic at slower speeds because you don't get the bunching caused by people "driving on their brakes" as they zoom up to the next vehicle/ pedestrian crossing/ traffic lights then slam on the anchors creating an extremely inefficient(!) stop-start situation as they waste momentum turning it into heat (in their brakes) and then have to expend fuel accelerating again.

The empty gaps left when two-wheel users filter can be used for efficient driving by simply going a bit slower and allowing elasticity in the system. (Look up Hypermiling for more details).

And London isn't representative of the whole country. Having travelled on two wheels in that city and others, it seems that the vast majority London road users, no matter how many wheels they are on, are bloody terrible!

Re: @Vladimir Plouzhnikov - @ Graham Marsden

Yes, the 98% effficiency for bicycles is illusory - it's comparing the drivetrain and transmission of one vehicle with the entire powertrain of another. The energy advantage of bicycles comes more from the reduced power usage, due to reduced speed and weight.

NO. Bicycles do not necessarily use the roads highly inefficiently. The problem in western cities is that the system is primarily designed for cars and other larger vehicles.

Re: @Dodgy Geezer - @Vladimire Plouzhnikov - Sigh...

"Why do we now buy fridges and freezers etc which are more energy efficient than the ones that were available in the past"

We buy them because we can afford them. Aaaand, since they are much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate than when they were first introduced, _a lot_ more people can afford them. Had they stayed expensive fewer people would have bothered and we would not have to produce as much electricity to run them all.

I think you'll find the governments of Russia, Europe, Japan and the US are funding this research. Because it's incredibly expensive, and still so far away from practical output no private investor could take the gamble. To an extent governments have taken over the role of very long term venture capitalists, and you might well see that as a good thing. Unfortunately this means that our longest term investments are in the hands of some of our smallest intellects, and those people have both a very short term horizon, and predilections for spending money on bread and circuses rather than anything really useful.

All of which ignores the risk that despite the billions spent, fusion may never work economically.

You mean apart from all the millions that ARE being thrown into funding it.

"it works"

Yeah...as of about two weeks ago, after thirty years of work. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, only pointing out the banality of saying "It works, why don't we have it?" barely seconds after it's finally been made to work and belittling everyone who has ever worked on it, by pretending that they haven't been...

@martijn - The small scale fusion you may be thinking of is on the order of a few seconds at a time. Not really all that viable even if all you want to do is check your email. Do to the cost of the technology, if fusion reactors do become a reality, they will be large. The baseline costs are too much to justify anything smaller than around 1GW facilities at current estimates.

Sensible remark

"All of which ignores the risk that despite the billions spent, fusion may never work economically."

I mean...

Certainly I'm not seeing much indication that we're withing half a century of commercially viable fusion power - ITER will probably demonstrate some form of sustained burn, but it's a long way from being a demonstrator for an actual generating plant - for a start, it lacks any real means of taking the energy derived from the fusion reaction (which is mostly in the form of high energy neutrons) and turning it into useful heat.

The reality is, even assuming ITER works, it'll take maybe 10-15 years to gain that experience and turn it into a design for a true demonstration generating plant, 1--15 years to build that, then a decade of oeperation - at which point we might JUST be ready to try a commercial demonstation plant.

Focus Fusion

Here is another small-scale one which does work and is currently in the process of being scaled up to (hopefully) reach net energy output. What's more, it doesn't need expensive deuterium and tritium, and it doesn't produce pesky neutron radiation. http://focusfusion.org/

Re: fusion is being funded - alot

Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are the way to go, developed in the 60's at ORNL, they can't blow up, melt down or make weapons. Low pressure, burn 99% of its fuel and solves the waste problem? energyfromthorium.com

Re: fusion is being funded - alot

Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are the way to go, developed in the 60's at ORNL, they can't blow up, melt down or make weapons. Low pressure, burn 99% of its fuel and solves the waste problem? energyfromthorium.com

True.

Pity most of the major nuclear players do not make their money from building the reactors but fueling them

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

Mate, they ain't part of the answer. They are a major part of the problem. Introduction of huge swathes of wind and solar power causes infinitely more problems than they solve.

Indeed it is hard to see a single problem they do solve.

Unless co-operated with massive hydro, they don't reduce emissions. In fact there is considerable evidence to show that in cases of co-operating with certain types of fossil power, any benefit in reduced fossil generation is more than offset by the requirements to dump fuel into fossil hugely inefficiently to get high slew rate ramp up to compensate for little matters like the wind dropping, and sunset..

Intermittent renewables are an expensive cosmetic solution that does nothing to really address emissions at all. Its a make believe solution for politicians to adopt funded by generous rake offs from the consumer that go straight into renewable companies and from then it government ministers back pockets. That is its main function is not to produce reliable low emissions electricity, but to be give the appearance of so doing, for political and commercial profit.

Insofar as nuclear is an infinitely cheaper, less environmentally damaging, and more effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, Hansen et al are completely correct.

Of course, whether there is any need to reduce CO2 emissions is a moot point...but that is a step too far for Hansen.

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

"Insofar as nuclear is an infinitely cheaper...."

In what parallel universe is nuclear power cheaper than anything? If you've been paying attention, you'll have seen the UK government has just guaranteed to pay EDF more than double the current UK wholesale power price for a new nuclear reactor. That's fairly representative of the "Alice in Wonderland" economics that is used to justify energy policy (which in itself has been decided to appease the worshippers of climate change).

So the recent Parliamentary whining about high energy prices is revelaed as complete cant. Their solution to public anger over rising energy prices is to rubber stamp agreements to double current prices.

Re: The penny drops

Renewables unless their output is available on schedule are useless. Water works, Methan works within limits (1) but neither solar nor water work in most of the developed world. Same for geo-thermal. Unless you have activities (i.e Island) that is not a smart technology to use since artificial geothermal uses technology similar to fracking and (as germany has learned) can cause nice earthquakes.

The main problem with the unreliables (Wind, Solar) is that you need backup capacity equal to what they generate IF they are running. Backup that are either "running idle" (selling the produced energy for "black zero" or even less) OR quick starting. The latter are bascially Methan driven gas turbines. Not very efficient and not very environment friendly.

As an alternative you can learn to live with blackouts, brownouts, power rationing (and domestic WILL be the first to be switched off) and other fancy things. There is a good reason Poland is making sure they can isolate themselfs from the german network if necessary.

(1) Using fields purely for Methan production means that the remaining food producing fields need more fertilizer etc - not a good choice

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

itzman is correct. Our local gas power station has just been upgraded at great expense to bring up it's efficiency to close to 60%, however with cheap coal taking up the base load and having to drop out any time wind become available, it is no longer viable to run continuously, but is now powering up and down on a daily cycle. This means it spends a large proportion of its time only running at around 30% efficiency (the same as coal), completely negating any CO2 savings from the wind.

The cost is enormous, not just from the obscene subsidy paid for that tiny amount of wind, but at the same time running cost of the gas plant increases due to reduced life of components from continued cycling, the staff all need to be paid whether its generating or not. Just to top it off when the wind stops during very cold calm spells in the winter, some of the energy from the gas plant has to go back to the wind farm to heat the blades so they don't ice up.

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

Ledswiger; the EDF deal is for energy prices in 10 years time, and is quite a bit cheaper than we are paying for the least expensive renewable - onshore wind - right now.

In 10 years there will be no more onshore wind locations, leaving only offshore wind which is currently over twice cost, and even more ridiculously inefficient solar. With coal having been banned by then, and then being at the mercy of foreign supplied gas, that nuclear deal is going to look like the bargain of the century.

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

"Indeed it is hard to see a single problem they do solve."

I don't see solar that way. I see it as there being a really good fusion reactor in the sky that's there for the tapping; especially in rural, poverty-stricken areas which aren't on the grid. We're not that efficient at tapping into it yet, but the first petrol engines were a bit crap too and we didn't give up on them straight away.

It's not perfect and not really as good as making our own fusion plants, but solar energy shouldn't simply be written off as a bad plan. It's not like we're short on space for it, either.

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

"and then being at the mercy of foreign supplied gas, that nuclear deal is going to look like the bargain of the century."

As opposed to French and Chinese supplied nuclear power?

Nuclear power is expensive, despite the number of people saying it's not. It costs a lot to build and a lot to take apart. And any private company is going to whimper and beg for handouts and begrudge doing it at the cost of short-term losses for long-term gains, because their Board are going to be waving 'bye to their bonuses and handing them to the guy in their chair in 20 years.

There is no cheap solution.

Energy companies are keen to tell us that government requirements to invest in renewables are what is jacking the price up... well of COURSE they are saying that, because they're not going to just come out and say "Really, we're ripping you off because we're a private company that wants to make money for the people that own us at your expense, and this a convenient excuse that you're all to eager to believe."

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

@ Psyx

"I don't see solar that way. I see it as there being a really good fusion reactor in the sky that's there for the tapping; especially in rural, poverty-stricken areas which aren't on the grid. We're not that efficient at tapping into it yet, but the first petrol engines were a bit crap too and we didn't give up on them straight away."

My problem with wind and solar is we are talking about the grid. This is a national cost for grid coverage. If it was a few people away from the grid then its a different story. The great fusion reactor in the sky is blocked by weather and protections of earths atmosphere.

Wind and solar could bring limited electricity to those unable to reach the grid. But then its a pet project for their private cost. I completely disagree with plugging this failed technology into our grid at our cost and completely disagree with energy from incapable sources taking priority on the grid

Re: The penny drops - renewables as 'The Answer'. ?

If we hadn't had fossil fuels, the industrial revolution would have probably been a bit slower, but it would have still happened, and by now we would have a renewable energy economy.

Mind you, we'd probably have even less forests, as one of the most readily accessible forms of concentrated renewable energy is wood.

Those who say renewable energy can't be the answer lack imagination.

1) The electricity grid is becoming larger, and there are even plans to link the Americas with Russia. If electricity can be transmitted efficiently enough, and I believe it already can, then soon the grid will always be in daylight somewhere, making base load solar feasible.

2) If we could harvest half of the fuel that feeds devastating bushfires it could be used to generate gas (by pyrolysis) and electricity, and reduce the bushfire risk at the same time.

3) Many food plants are annuals, and most of their biomass just goes to waste once the food is harvested. This biomass could be harvested for electricity and gas generation.

4) One form of solar energy being tried stores solar energy in reservoirs of superheated steam for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Re: Marketing Change?

Re: Marketing Change?

The same thing happened to the tomato as well (because it's related to nightshade). Thing was, poor Italians had little choice, so necessity taught them that, hey, you can eat tomatoes, and the rest was history. That's what's needed for nuclear to be pushed forward again: a whole lot of NECESSITY.